Judgment

RANGANATHAN, J. :- Special leave granted.

2. This is an appeal to this Court from the judgment of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in a civil revision petition filed by the appellant (C.R.P. 155 of 1984). The result of the judgment was to restore a decree passed against the appellant by the trial Court in a suit for eviction instituted by the respondent in 1980. The main ground on which the appellant had resisted the suit was that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (which we shall hereinafter briefly refer to as the Rent Act). It is the correctness of this ground of defence that is in issue in this appeal.

3. The appellant, the State of Uttar Pradesh, took on lease a premises at Barabanki belonging to the respondent for the purpose of running a Leprosy Training Centre. The respondent was thus the landlord, and the appellant the tenant, in respect of the premises within the meaning of S. 3(a) of the Rent Act. This Act has been enacted "to provide, in the interests of the general public, for the regulation of letting and rent of, and the eviction of tenants from, certain classes of buildings situated in urban areas, and for matters connected therewith." Section 20 of the Act bars the institution of a suit for the eviction of a tenant, notwithstanding the termination of his tenancy, except on the grounds specified in sub-sec. (2) of that section but none of these grounds were pleaded by the respondent. S. 21 of the Act enables a prescribed authority to order the eviction of a tenant in two situations, subject to certain conditions and limitations. These situations are : (a) where the landlord requires the premises for his own use and (b) where, the building being in a dilapidated condition, he desires to demolish the same and put up a new construction. These situations also do not prevail here. The landlord, however, gave a notice of termination of tenancy under S. 106 of the T. P. Act and filed a suit for recovery of possession. The appellant claimed that the suit was not maintainable and that the respondents remedy, if any, was only to seek eviction in the circumstances and in the manner outlined in the Act.

4. The respondent sought to overcome this hurdle by contending that the premises in question are not one of the classes of buildings covered by the Rent Act. In support of this contention, he relied upon an exclusion clause incorporated in S. 2(l)(a) of the Act. Since the whole case turns on a proper interpretation of this clause and since the clause has undergone changes from time to time, it is necessary to refer to these in some detail to facilitate a proper appreciation of the stands of the parties.

(a) In the Rent Act, as originally enacted and brought into force on 15-7-1972, this sub-section ran thus :

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to -

(a) any building belonging to, or vested in, the Government of any State or any local authority: or

(b) any tenancy created by grant from the State Government or the Government of India in respect of a building taken on lease or requisitioned by such Government."

(b) U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 amended S. 2(1) to substitute new clauses in place of the above clauses. The amended sub-section, in so far as is relevant for our present purposes, reads thus :

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to

(a) any public building; or

(b) any building belonging to or vested in a recognised educational institution, the whole of the income from which is utilised for the purposes of such institution;

(c) to (f) x x x x x x x

A definition of public building was inserted in S. 3 which read :

"(o) public building means any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government (including the Government of any other State) and includes any building belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation.